29
   

FINAL COUNTDOWN FOR USA ELECTION 2008

 
 
okie
 
  2  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2008 05:04 pm
@JamesMorrison,
James, I agree ceo compensation is not the primary problem, but it is a side issue that needs addressing. I saw it a long time ago while working for a corporation. I am all for market driven compensation, but it isn't in a large number of cases. Proof is the fact that executives receive huge compensation while running their companies into the ground. The problem has something to do with good ole boys serving on each others boards of directors, and they okay each others packages, and the stockholders are often left holding the bag. I would need to study this more, but I think stockholders need to have greater input into some of the compensation packages, etc. Privately held companies is a different story, they can make whatever they can make, no limits necessary, they should reap the rewards that they earn. I don't think that is the case with many corporate execs.
Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2008 05:05 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

This is interesting.

Obama has prosecutors ready to prosecute ANYONE that says anything that is critical of Obama.

http://stlcofcc.wordpress.com/2008/09/24/obamination-obama-suppoerters-bob-mcculloch-jennifer-joyce-threaten-to-prosecute-people-for-criticizing-obama/

Quote:
KMOV Channel 4’s TV newscast night before last at 6 PM had a story, that stated that St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch and St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, both Obama supporters, are implying that they will bring criminal libel charges against anyone who levels what turns out to be false criticisms of their chosen candidate for President


This sure seems like censorship to me, or maybe they are afraid of what people can say.


Well let's hope it catches on. I can't think of a better campaign sound bite for McCain and the Republicans than being able to point to lawsuits to shut people up. Is that what people really want in a agent of change?
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2008 05:07 pm
@Foxfyre,
There is a good video that I posted, I would need to find it again, but just do a search, Barney contended there was absolutely no problem with Fannie and Freddie, everything was just fine, this in 2005 I think, and he was opposing efforts to reign them in.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2008 05:08 pm
@Foxfyre,
That could be the change that Obama is hinting at, that he hasn't detailed yet?
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  2  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2008 05:25 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote: "Obama has prosecutors ready to prosecute ANYONE that says anything that is critical of Obama."

Whatever happened to McCain's charges of libel against the NYT concerning Freddie and Fannie payments to his campaign manager, Rick Davis?



spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2008 05:37 pm
@Debra Law,
Well- what did happen to them?

I came on Able 2 Know to be abled to know things like that.
0 Replies
 
JamesMorrison
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2008 05:47 pm
@Foxfyre,
Quote:
That would be the very same Barney Frank that fought tooth and nail and blocked the Bush Administration's attempt to put stronger regulation on Freddie and Fannie back in 2003 when the alarm bells were first sounded? The same Barney Frank, Chair of the House Financial Services Committee, who now is attempting to blame the Republicans for deregulation causing all this mess?


Yes, the very same. The problem here, as you well know, is not Frank behaving like a democratic social engineer. The problem is that he has been allowed to by Fan and Fred's charter. The very concept that many seemly now oppose that would allow "government bailouts" they had absolutely no problem with for years and years that allowed Fan and Fred's lobbyists clamoring for ever larger government backing and, therefore, increased social risk to the tax payer that allowed Fan and Fred to accumulate vast sums of profit (due to this advantage over their private sector competition) for their stockholders and huge bonuses for their executives. Recently congress missed their chance. When Fan and Fred got their bailout congress should have fired the executives immediately, put them in into receivership, broken them up, and sold off their assets.

The cry we now hear (Hilary just sounded off in the WSJ on Thursday) is that we should try to keep people in their homes. Question to Hillary: Are these the same people who received Alt A or liar loans sans pay check stubs and other documentation verifying financial solvency or those people who put no money down on the homes or those people who received interest only loans (and have no equity in the property because they only paid the interest on the loan) or those who signed up for ARM's whose original interests terms are way lower than traditional 30 year mortgages and now would have us believe they are victims of "predatory loan practices" when the loan interest terms predictably reset starting next year? What would people who saved and put money down on their regular 30 mortgages and faithfully worked hard and paid their monthly bills say: "No problem congress! I would love to pay a couple more hundred bucks towards the above people's mortgage. Excuse me now while I prepare to assume the position--again.

The fiscally responsible Republicans who are excoriated for bailing out Wall Street and calling for Fan and Fred's demise are now painted as holding up the proposed $700 billion "bailout". Seems they can't win for losing.

Well, the debate is tonight. I hope America makes the right choice, especially this November.

JM
0 Replies
 
JamesMorrison
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2008 05:56 pm
@mysteryman,
Quote:
Obama has prosecutors ready to prosecute ANYONE that says anything that is critical of Obama.


Maybe Obama should try and reinstate the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798! Although this might be common ground for him and McCain via the McCain/Feingold campaign finance laws. Wink

JM
0 Replies
 
JamesMorrison
 
  2  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2008 06:24 pm
@okie,
Quote:
James, I agree ceo compensation is not the primary problem, but it is a side issue that needs addressing. I saw it a long time ago while working for a corporation. I am all for market driven compensation, but it isn't in a large number of cases. Proof is the fact that executives receive huge compensation while running their companies into the ground. The problem has something to do with good ole boys serving on each others boards of directors, and they okay each others packages, and the stockholders are often left holding the bag. I would need to study this more, but I think stockholders need to have greater input into some of the compensation packages, etc. Privately held companies is a different story, they can make whatever they can make, no limits necessary, they should reap the rewards that they earn. I don't think that is the case with many corporate execs.


Okie, I agree, but this is a thorny problem, well not thorny but difficult to resolve. Executive pay has gone up something like 17 times that of the rank and file. The proper place for this, however, is in the corporation itself, not the government. The corporate pay board and all that, but as you say, the old boy network short circuits this check. The next is that of stockholders, but most, like me, either reject such corporate stewardship at the outset (by not buying the stock) or later when it becomes intolerable (by selling the stock) but this just makes it someone else's problem that is less informed. I would like to see executive contracts specifically address "golden parachutes" for execs of losing companies but I really don't think government holds the resolution (unless they take it over and I'm not not that either)

JM
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2008 09:38 pm
@JamesMorrison,
James, I would agree with that to some extent, but lets face it, the government regulates and has created the whole framework of how corporations operate, thus the government can reform how corporations operate under the law. Some reform could change the way boards of directors interact with company executives and stockholders, and how much influence stockholders have, and how that influence is conducted. The issue could also be addressed through the door of how compensations from corporations are taxed, through the income tax system.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  3  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2008 11:34 am
What do you think about this ad? I think my only serious quarrel with it is that it misrepresents Obama's statement when he said "We are no longer a Christian nation". (He qualified that with the subsequent sentence that is not shown here.) Otherwise fair or unfair?

Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2008 04:47 pm
And what do ya'll think about THIS??????

Obama campaign cracks down on misleading TV ads
September 23rd, 2008The Barack Obama campaign is asking Missouri law enforcement to target anyone who lies or runs a misleading TV ad during the presidential campaign.
http://www.kmov.com/video/index.html?nvid=285793&shu=1
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2008 04:56 pm
@Foxfyre,
Geez Foxfyre. You haven't gotten the news yet either.

Palin can't even give a decent interview with Katie Couric. It is clear even to conservative commentators that she is in over her head.

I don't find this ad to be insulting or unfair... I find it laughably dumb.

After looking at Gov. Palin's performance with the press, and Obama's performance in the debate, press conferences and numerous interviews... this ad is silly.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  5  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2008 05:08 pm
Yeah I got the memo ebrown. And I understand that there are those who expect Sarah Palin to be as up to speed and proficient and polished as Obama and Biden are--Obama who has been campaigning non stop for four years now; and Biden who has been campaigning non stop for more than a couple of decades. And both of whom are forgiven every possible gaffe including Biden asking somebody in a wheel chair to stand up and be recognized and those folks who were watching TV when the market crashed in 1929 understood why it is important to prevent that now and Obama and his 57 states and calling for the UN Security council to deal with Russia and all and arrogantly demanding that we need to pull Arabic translators out of Iraq and send them to Afghanistan (where no Arabic is spoken.) If Palin had said stuff like that, you guys would be screaming at her to high heaven. But you forgive your guys don't you.

I guarantee you that given a chance, Sarah Palin will be up to speed and polished and proficient within a few weeks. I'm pretty sure she has quite a bit more on the ball than those other two guys and, if you guys weren't so blindly partisan and sexist, you could see it.

But since you are, I'll just ask you to take my word that a person of Sarah Palin's caliber gets the job done where politicians who try to get by on polish and bullshit most likely won't have much more to offer than just that.
ebrown p
 
  2  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2008 05:22 pm
@Foxfyre,
Partisan? Maybe.

Sexist? Give me a break. If Sarah Palin were a man, she would have been laughed off of the national stage much sooner (and she would be treated with much less concern).

She is not being treated worse because she is a woman.

The fact she is extraordinarily unqualified for the job, and that this is now even becoming clear to Conservative columnists has nothing to do with her gender.

If anything, her gender is making people treat her with more deference than she deserves.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2008 05:27 pm
@ebrown p,
Most of the conservative men has other "motives." They think with some other organ that below their waist rather than the one above their ears.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  2  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2008 05:31 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
I'm pretty sure she has quite a bit more on the ball than those other two guys [Obama and Biden] and, if you guys weren't so blindly partisan and sexist, you could see it.

But since you are, I'll just ask you to take my word that a person of Sarah Palin's caliber gets the job done where politicians who try to get by on polish and bullshit most likely won't have much more to offer than just that.


Are you calling all the conservatives who have come forth to declare that Palin is utterly clueless, incurious, small-minded, and unfit to be VP, "blindly partisan?" The only discernible SEXIST treatment of Palin comes from her own McCain campaign handlers who won't let her play in the same political sandbox as the men. If the McCain campaign doesn't trust her to present herself as a capable candidate for one of our nation's highest offices, why should the rest of us give her the benefit of the doubt?

No doubt, Sarah "Armageddon" Palin is willing to push the red buttons and send our missiles flying to Palestine, Iran, and N. Korea, etc., in order to "get the job done," but most sane people prefer diplomacy rather than mass destruction.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2008 05:44 pm
@Debra Law,
That's a distinct possibility, because she said that the Iraq war was a "task from god."

I think that one flew over their heads too!
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  2  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2008 05:44 pm
@Foxfyre,
Quote:
And what do ya'll think about THIS??????

Obama campaign cracks down on misleading TV ads
September 23rd, 2008The Barack Obama campaign is asking Missouri law enforcement to target anyone who lies or runs a misleading TV ad during the presidential campaign.
http://www.kmov.com/video/index.html?nvid=285793&shu=1


I think this is another Repubican smear tactic using the Rovian handbook. There is no doubt that Obama has solicited all of America to fight the smears. After all, we want this campaign powered by TRUTH, not by enemies who seek to demonize.

http://fightthesmears.com/

I have no doubt that the governor of Missouri, a stauch Republican supporter of the McCain-Palin ticket (and one who most likely expects to be rewarded with an appointment to a high level federal position if McCain is elected)--who has publicly smeared Obama in the past and will continue to do so in the future--is responsible for portraying Obama's legitimate "fight the smears" program into a "nefarious" undertaking.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Sat 27 Sep, 2008 05:52 pm
@Debra Law,
And here's this from ABC News:


Quote:
McCain Says He's Running "Respectful Campaign," Not "Negative In the Slightest"

August 01, 2008 5:45 PM

In Panama City, Florida, today, per ABC News Bret Hovell, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said of his new web video mocking Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, as a false messiah, "we were having some fun. We were having some fun with our supporters that we sent it out to and we're gonna display a sense of humor in this campaign. I noticed a couple of days ago that Senator Obama challenged me to a duel. Well, light sabers is my weapon of choice.

"But seriously if we have differences, we should have appeared at the Urban League convention today," McCain continued. "I've asked him time after time to appear with me on the same stage so we can discuss the issues that are important to the American people."


We all know what happened before he appeared in Miss last night. He had to save the bailout by being in Washington, and accomplished in delaying it.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 10/17/2021 at 12:54:01